---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Date: 28 Nov 2007 07:26
Subject: Re: (offlist) Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have
avoided the Durova Case
To: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
David, sorry, one more to wikiEN-l, if you don't mind. Something that
I wrote earlier wasn't correct.
Sorry to be a pain, but I really don't want to subscribe -- though
perhaps I could do it with no posts, then I'd be free to post myself
if I need to. I'll try that for the future.
From: Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> Moreschi, whoever your informant is, they're not giving you an
> accurate picture. First, I had almost nothing to do with the
> investigations list and have virtually no knowledge of it. My
> recollection is that I posted to it once, and that was recently to say
> I had no interest in it. If it was more than once, it wasn't very much
> more.
I need to correct what I said earlier about only having posted once to
the investigations list. I noticed tonight that I posted eight times
to a thread I'd forgotten about. Someone was having difficulty with a
technical issue, and I was trying to explain it. To the best of my
recollection, and so far I can see from my archives, that was the
extent of my involvement.
Sarah
> From: Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk>
> Date: Nov 27, 2007 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> And why, then, did we think it quite alright to set up a bastard child
> to wpcyberstalking, wpinvestigations-1? This little list I know quite
> a lot about - I've seen some truly bizarre and quite terrifying
> conversations, including some posts that make you wonder how on earth
> something like the block of !! didn't happen a lot earlier. Sockpuppet
> paranoia, investigation obsession, weird suggestions for the CUs
> galore - it's got the lot, baby. In fact, Thatcher summed this
> wretched list up very nicely: "...unhelpful and possible dangerous
> development. Blocks and such should be
> discussed and documented on Wiki whenever possible. In extraordinary
> circumstances evidence may need to be kept private, but those cases
> should be dealt with by Arbcom, who were elected for that purpose,
> rather than a group of self-selected investigators who may lack proper
> perspective."
>
> Wikipedia is not a MMORG for SlimVirgin to play webmaster to.
Please note that I have no reason to doubt SlimVirgin's statement that
she did not participate in the Investigations list. It appears that
Durova's email about !! was sent to the Cyberstalking list as an
example of "here's how to spot a WR troll," and not as "Here is a
troll I would like to block." Under the circumstances, I can't fault
the members of the list for not saying "Whoa!" I have seen several
recipients of the email express regret that they did not do so, but
not reading one's mail is not an actionable offense.
As I stated, an Investigations list is an unfortunate development
because it amounts to a group of people who believe in Bigfoot all
looking for evidence that Bigfoot exists. And, even assuming Durova
is correct that trolls from Wikipedia Review are infiltrating
Wikipedia using a particular pattern of credibility-building edits,
that pattern looks the same as an old user starting over, or possibly
even a new user who is particularly quick to grasp community
conventions. Which is why I believe blocks should be justified by
on-wiki evidence and behavior, not private evidence and anticipated
behavior.
However, the Cyberstalking list was started with the best intentions
and I hope it is doing some good. It is important to separate the
medium from the message. A poorly-judged block is is the
responsibility of the blocker, regardless of whether it was discussed
on a private mailing list, IRC, or by carrier pigeon. An insular
environment can contribute to poor judgement (and I can name a hundred
real-world examples, from the Bush administration to the University of
Delaware's ideological purity program for freshmen) which is why
insular environments are potentially dangerous. But ultimately the
responsibility lies with the individual, and beating up on other
participants in the mailing list serves no purpose whatsoever.
Thatcher131
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Date: 27 Nov 2007 20:06
Subject: (offlist) Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided
the Durova Case
To: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
David, would you or one of the other moderators please forward this
reply to the mailing list?
Sarah
>
> From: Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> Date: Nov 27, 2007 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> Oh? I remain to be convinced. Why, then, did Durova think it quite
> alright to post her evidence to !! to this list? Why do we have good
> people, like Krimpet, being attacked on this mailing list? Why do we
> have two of our finest, Thatcher131 and Alison (now a CU), signing up
> to this list and then rapidly unsubscribing when they find it wasn't,
> after all, that it was cooked up to be. In fact, Alison memorably
> described it as chock-full of "bitterness, anger and wikipolitics". Oh
> dear.
How do you know Alison said this? Are you aware that she has stated
clearly she was not a member of the list?
>
> And why, then, did we think it quite alright to set up a bastard child
> to wpcyberstalking, wpinvestigations-1? This little list I know quite
> a lot about - I've seen some truly bizarre and quite terrifying
> conversations, including some posts that make you wonder how on earth
> something like the block of !! didn't happen a lot earlier. Sockpuppet
> paranoia, investigation obsession, weird suggestions for the CUs
> galore - it's got the lot, baby. In fact, Thatcher summed this
> wretched list up very nicely: "...unhelpful and possible dangerous
> development. Blocks and such should be
> discussed and documented on Wiki whenever possible. In extraordinary
> circumstances evidence may need to be kept private, but those cases
> should be dealt with by Arbcom, who were elected for that purpose,
> rather than a group of self-selected investigators who may lack proper
> perspective."
>
> Wikipedia is not a MMORG for SlimVirgin to play webmaster to.
Moreschi, whoever your informant is, they're not giving you an
accurate picture. First, I had almost nothing to do with the
investigations list and have virtually no knowledge of it. My
recollection is that I posted to it once, and that was recently to say
I had no interest in it. If it was more than once, it wasn't very much
more. And your description of the cyberstalking discussion group is
just plain wrong.
I'd appreciate it if you'd quit with the
SlimVirgin's-to-blame-for-everything meme that certain individuals
love to promote. Its only effect is to muddy the issues you're trying
to clarify, so it's in no-one's interests, except for the people who
grab any opportunity to attack me. I hope you're not playing to that
gallery.
I'm not a subscriber to this list, so if anyone wants me to read
replies, please cc me.
Sarah
> Earlier: "... I constantly whinge ...
... [from bartleby.com, whinge = chiefly British to complain or protest,
especially in an annoying or persistent manner; versus (US?) whine = to
complain or protest in a childish fashion] ...
> ... about being banned. But it just sucks to be in this position,
because I can't edit
> the encyclopedia, I can't go on a forum (which is admittedly not your
fault), I can't go
> on IRC, all that's left for me to do is to go on the mailing list.
Pre-emptive counter to
> "go outside": I do, often, and it sucks ... I don't like this any more
than you do. It's
> more painful to write this than it is to read it, trust me. I'd just
like to get this over
> with, so that I can go back to editing the encyclopedia. Then I could
talk about things
> that actually mattered on the mailing list, instead of watching
through the frosted
> glass of banishment ..."
Peter Blaise responds:
Regarding "... talk about things that actually mattered ..." I think
discussions about banning always matter. Until we ban banning. Then we
can talk about the next impatient, intolerant, un-accepting,
non-equivalent consideration thing we do to each other.
Regarding "... It's more painful to write this than it is to read it..."
I have no doubt, yet anyone here who doesn't want to read can just
scroll on, and instead, we can read (or write) something we prefer.
But, I see that we do tend to spend a significant portion of our dialog
reviewing the details of banning. I guess, after all, we still believe
banning has positives that outweigh the negatives. Yet, the balance
between the pros and cons of banning seems quite different for each of
us, eh? So, I guess we'll just have to keep discussing the inner
details of banning, case by case, ad infinitum, ad naseum.
I can't find the quote, but I think it was U. S. President Kennedy who
is reported to have said something like, "If we make peaceful protest
impossible ..." Can anyone find and finish the quote / idea? Thanks.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Date: 27 Nov 2007 20:51
Subject: (offlist) Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided
the Durova Case
To: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
David, could you forward this too, please?
> > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:11:17 +0000
> > From: james.farrar(a)gmail.com
> > To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
> > The point is that it's impossible to name them because their identity
> > is being kept a secret; they have been referred to only as "trusted
> > people". This is why such a fuss is being kicked up - by Durova's own
> > statements, some "trusted people" that she consulted "enthusiastically
> > endorsed" the !! block.
I can confirm that no-one on the cyberstalking discussion list
"enthusiastically endorsed" the block. It wasn't presented to the list
as a block proposal. It was just a list of links designed as a "case
study" of how to spot an alternate/sockpuppet account. I didn't read
it at the time, and actually I doubt many people did, because the
discussion group wasn't set up to deal with general sockpuppetry, but
to focus on the issue of harassment.
The post may have been presented to the investigations list. I don't
recall seeing it there, and I don't have it in my archives, but I
wasn't reading most of the posts on that list, so I may have missed
it. It may also have been presented elsewhere, I don't know. The only
thing I do know is that there was no enthusiastic endorsement by the
cyberstalking discussion group.
Sarah
Here's a short few points from another in the thick of it;
- I submitted private information to Guy via email, which he shared
with this list despite my asking him clearly not to
- Fellow list members 'reviewed' Guy's blocking of me, reblocked me,
and then reviewed that block.
- List members have discussed my editing for almost a month, and as we
speak are voting in my arbitration case without any on-wiki disclosure
I'm no User:!!, but I've fiddled away trying to help at the encyclopedia for
about 3 years, and am now indefinitely blocked.
Full disclosure - I've edited using 8 accounts over 3 years, any many assert
I've abused both SOCK policy, and BLP at Jonathan King, and Giovanni di
Stefano articles.
Nothing I have done makes the three points above ok.
On 11/27/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> . Administrators are individually responsible for each and
> every administrative action they take. But I don't see how that is
> contradicted by what happened here: Durova was responsible for the block
of
> !!, and she has been held to account for it. Precisely no-one appears to
be
> arguing that Durova's responsibility is diminished because she ran it by a
> select group before taking action; even if that group had all supported
the
> proposed action, it would still have been the responsibility of whoever
> performed the block.
It was her responsibility-- but it was their responsibility too. She
drew upon the authority of others several times in justifying her
block. The fact that arbiters had endorsed the block was implied if
not outright stated.
If an arbiter advises an admin to take an erroneous action, who made
the error? Well, everybody involved.
But, we're not saying anybody should be burned at the stake over
this-- but we have some refs who made completely unreasonable calls,
and we need to know who, so that we can help them and us learn how to
prevent this sort of thing from happening again. THe people who were
involved should be WELCOMING this process, not trying to hide in the
shadows lest people know how badly the blew the call.
Durova here was a great example. She stood up, she admitted she had
made the call, admitted some of her her error, and decided she needed
to ask the community for their trust again. Her actions in how she
handled the error have been 100% exemplary.
Unfortunately, her associates haven't yet worked up the courage to
follow her example. They ought to stand up, say "Yep, I saw the
evidence, and here's what I said about it. I told her !! deserved
blocking, I was wrong, and I apologize, and I will try to do better
in the future".
To the people who saw the evidence and endorsed the block, I would say
this. I know it's never easy to come clean when you made a mistake.
It's embarassing, it's frustrating. I know being honest with the
community will mean taking a reputation hit in the short term-- but
it's the right thing to do for the project. Ya made a mistake.
Doesn't make you an evil person, doesn't make you a bad person-- ya
just need to own up to it.
Alec
******
Alec, I appreciate that you're giving me some credit for stepping forward to
take the heat for my own mistake. Nobody else needs to. The mistake was
mine.
There are several fundamental logical errors happening on the part of the
people who are promoting this argument: you're failing to recognize the
possibility of alternative explanations that place the whole thing in a much
different light. That was a key mistake I made. You're making it too.
I said in my evidence statement that the list isn't pertinent. I have also
said repeatedly that the mistakes I made belong to me. It's obvious from my
perspective how loudly and fiercely a pack of hounds are barking up the
wrong tree. The irony here is too complete to ignore.
When I got the !! block wrong I didn't dig in my heels and demand the full
details of why and how the editor had changed accounts. It was enough for
me to get one confirmable piece of evidence that contradicted my previous
conclusion. As soon as I had that I did a complete turnaround, with
apologies and my best efforts at atonement, and that's not an easy step to
take. There's a very human impulse to reach for excuses.
I'm not going to point out exactly where your logical errors are because, no
doubt, that would only lead to further loose cannon speculation. At least I
had enough rigor in my research to collect more than two dozen diffs and
compare them to an existing hypothesis. The hypothesis itself was unsound,
but the evidence available to me at the time did match it. The evidence
already available to you does not match your hypothesis. All you need to do
is go over existing statements in the site history files and you'll see
several ways that it doesn't match.
Now if you want to know why I'm on that cyberstalking list, there are
several reasons. Have the decency to suppose that it is what it is, and
leave the good people alone.
I'd be very impressed if people who've pursued that line of reasoning took
the same steps I did: open mouth, remove foot, stand up, apologize.
-Durova
Well, understand-- I'm really not out to cause drama. If I was
confidence silence would have led the community to the truth, I'd
greatly prefer that.
******
Alec, suppose you had a neighbor who worked for the Post Office and one day
she drove a Mercedes home and stepped out of it wearing diamond earrings.
There's no plate on the car. You might wonder whether she had broken the
law. You might even write down the VIN number on her car and ask the police
department whether this were a stolen vehicle. It isn't.
Word gets back to her from her cousin in the police department and she feels
hurt and angry. Other neighbors tell you to leave her alone. Yet you
still demand to know about the diamond earrings. Are they cubic zirconia or
are they real? Has she been cheating on her taxes? You want her tax
records for the public good.
Actually her grandmother died last week. She inherited them. Then the
license plate fell off the car. And really, that full story is none of your
business. And by pressing so hard when trust was due, you damaged your own
reputation and added to her grief.
-Durova
> That's easy to blame after the fact when no clear standards existed.
Durova-- I know this mailing list has gotten heated, but please
believe me when I say it really isn't about blame. Honestly, from the
bottom of my heart, it's not. I think you were a great admin. To my
knowledge, I only encountered you in on-wiki disputes twice, and in
both cases, you were completely in the right. Even though we
disagreed with on philosophical issues, you were always civil, and you
were on the shortlist of candidates I was going to vote for you for
arbcom. Assuming we get some clarity about what sort of secret
list/secret evidence behavior is appropriate, I very possibly will
find myself being an ardent supporter of yours come RFA time-- I know
you probably think I'm being insincere when I say that, but stranger
things have happened. Unflagging civility despite any circumstances
makes a big dang impression on me.
It's not about blame-- it's about oversight. The community ruled
very strongly that your judgment needed some oversight and some
feedback, and even though it looks advesarial, hopefully we're
providing that.
It just seems to me that anyone else who came to similar conclusions
should be subject to the same oversight-- doesn't it?
Alec
******
Alec, until eight days ago that oversight was not a community concern.
I believed it should be, because I wanted clear parameters that I could
comply with, but I just couldn't generate enough interest in the subject to
establish them.
Think of how many news stories the WikiScanner started. This site does
a good job of reverting basic vandalism and managing CSD. What it doesn't
do nearly so well is address the kind of sustained abuse that comes from
profit motive or ideological manipulation. I saw that it was an undermanned
area and stepped in, basically because I had developed skills from dealing
with a couple of long term vandals at the first article I ever edited.
Investigations needs to be a higher priority generally. If there's a good
ending to be had from eight days of drama, I hope that's it. Please direct
your energies to WP:COIN or WP:SSP. Those boards need help.
-Durova
There were in-depth deliberations about [[User:!!]] that led to his
blocking. Since that block was in error, we want to be able to look
at the conversations that led up to his blocking, so we can see who
all was at fault, where the system broke down, and how we can fix it.
This shouldn't be a controversial request, it should be a commonplace
one. In every erroneous block, people go back over the discussions to
see what went wrong. The only thing that's different in this case is
that you guy took your deliberations off-wiki, and are not trying to
prevent the community from reviewing what precisely went wrong. I
realize that may feel like an invasion of privacy, since you guys
thought the deliberations would be secret when you held them-- but
sadly, that's your own fault for doing admin investigations in a
secret venue.
******
That's easy to blame after the fact when no clear standards existed. Even
though Alkivar overturned my block on Burntsauce in April, no one raised a
protest that I asked for off-wiki evidence review then. Most of the
community just didn't pay attention to this for a long time. In the
THF-David Shankbone case I asked the Committee to make a ruling on fair play
practices regarding use of onsite name disclosures, and nobody really picked
up on why I thought that was important. Since I couldn't even spark their
interest on one of the clearest examples of the subject and it had played
into more than one case they handled, it seemed well-nigh impossible for me
to start a community dialog.
Nobody gets angry with the pitcher as long as he keeps throwing strikes.
And, per the developing Privatemusings decision, you really ought to be
going easier on people who were acting in good conscience in an area where
policy was silent.
It's noble of you to try to assure us that, if we could see the
evidence, we would see that you are the only one at fault here. But
surely you must understand, given the recent history, why we aren't
going to be willing to take your word for what the evidence will and
will not show.
Alec
******
I've been thinking of posting my evidence from the Alkivar case. Can't
release everything because it includes private e-mails, but there's a
trusted user version I've shared. Do you think it would be a good idea for
me to put that in user space alongside my Joan of Arc vandal report?
-Durova